[formalsystems]

This argument fails when you consider Google pushing AMP on news organizations. It is akin to a news stand telling newspaper publishers "if you print your paper using my font and paper, I'll put you front and center, otherwise enjoy your paper's new placement on the back shelves".

[SpicyLemonZest]

I'm not sure I follow what you're referring to here. I have some concerns about Google's UI for AMP, but as far as I know they don't downrank sites for not using it.

[floatingatoll]

> Google Search indexes AMP pages to provide a fast, reliable web experience. When an AMP page is available, it can be featured on mobile search as part of rich results and carousels. While AMP itself isn't a ranking factor, speed is a ranking factor for Google Search. Google Search applies the same standard to all pages, regardless of the technology used

Google can render their own proprietary page format more rapidly than a normal page, when it’s been loaded down with advertising and tracking anyways.

That performance difference results in a ranking boost for sites using AMP versus their normal site. They could get the same ranking boost by simply using first-party ads and dropping all the tracking cruft, but for whatever reason AMP is an easier sale to them.

The fight against AMP is difficult because Google is leveraging publisher greed for tracking data to sell them on a lock-in proprietary format, and trying to argue against AMP from a web health perspective goes nowhere because it’s not focusing on the problem of publisher greed for tracking data.

[mthoms]

You get better placement (e.g. in the news "carousel") if you use AMP.